Geocachers' Code

Recommended Posts

The "Geocachers' Code" was finalized on December 23, 2004 after a great deal of input over the course of a month from many geocachers. This is a voluntary code - it describes how geocachers in general act. It's designed to orient new players to the ethos of the geocaching community and to guide experienced players in questionable situations. The code is independent of geocaching.com and Groundspeak (i.e. it's our creation, not theirs).The Code itself follows...

The Geocacher's Code

Safe · Legal · Ethical

When placing or seeking geocaches, I will:

Not endanger myself or others.

Observe all laws and rules of the area.

Respect property rights and seek permission where appropriate.

Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm.

Minimize my and others' impact on the environment

Be considerate of others.

Protect the integrity of the gamepiece.

The following are examples of how to apply the code with further explanation. These are only examples and not part of the code - not every contingency can be spelled out. If something is not specifically listed in the examples, refer back to the "intent" by looking at the main tenets above. The items in the Code are in order of importance. An earlier one will take precedence over a later one.

A cache you own, or one you're trading out of, could be found by children or even a prisoner work crew - consider the location of the cache and those likely to find it when deciding what to leave as a trade item.

...Observe all laws and rules of the area.

Don’t break the law or rules of an area, or encourage others to do so, when placing or seeking a cache.

Don't leave illegal items in a cache.

...Respect property rights and seek permission where appropriate.

Seek permission on all private property that's not generally open to public access.

Check if public land has a geocaching policy and respect existing policies.

Promptly remove your cache if the land manager or steward asks.

Do not damage or interfere with buildings, structures, or signage.

...Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm.

Don’t place a cache near schools or government buildings unless the administration and staff are fully aware of the placement.

Use caution where children play. Parents are understandably concerned when strangers are near their children.

Don’t place a cache near critical infrastructure that might be considered a terrorist target, or create a cache that could be mistaken for a terrorist device (e.g. a pipe bomb).

[*]If you exchange trade items, trade kindly: Consider what future finders would like and leave something equal to or better than what you take.

[*]Move traveling items toward their goal if possible. Contact the owner if you hold a traveling item for more than a couple of weeks or so.

[*]Only place caches you can maintain and respond promptly to problem reports.

[*]Obtain permission from the originator before copying unique themes and techniques, adding to an existing series of caches, or placing a cache close to another.

...Protect the integrity of the gamepiece.

The owner entrusts you to not damage or jeopardize the cache. Try to ensure the cache is ready for the next finder and is as good or better than you found it.

Make sure the container is properly closed to prevent the contents from getting wet or destroyed.

Be inconspicuous in retrieving, signing in, and replacing a cache to avoid vandalism.

Put the cache back where you found it and hide it well. Don’t move a cache to match your reading - if you suspect the cache is not in the intended spot, hide it the best you can and alert the owner as soon as possible.

Don’t collect traveling items meant to stay in the game. This is tantamount to stealing.

Don’t tamper with or involve a game piece in "alternate" games without the owner’s permission.

Share this post

Link to post

Now that the code has been finalized, it's time to talk about distributing it. This forum is for geocachers who want to volunteer to help distribute the code. If you plan to approach an organization, publication or website about including the code, please note your intention here so that we don't have multiple people approaching the same site. Please also note the results of your efforts, quoting your original post and linking to the code's listing if applicable. Thanks!

Share this post

Link to post

I plan to bring this up at the first meeting of the new Geocachers of West Tennessee (GOWT) meeting in January. I'll watch this thread and we'll discuss ways to distribute it. I'm thinking about putting the tenets on the back of our membership cards, but that seems to me to be implying acceptance as a requirement for membership. What do y'all think?

Share this post

Link to post

I don't know why we need a code, I've already been playing this way for almost 3 years. As far as traveling items go, you should add that the owner of a traveling item should have the goals attached to the traveling item, otherwise risk the traveller moving in an undesired direction. It shouldn't be up to the finder to figure out what the goal is.

Share this post

Link to post

As far as traveling items go, you should add that the owner of a traveling item should have the goals attached to the traveling item, otherwise risk the traveller moving in an undesired direction. It shouldn't be up to the finder to figure out what the goal is.

A good point, but we've decided to "finalize" the code for now, so that we could get it distributed (the discussion of what to include, or not include, can go on forever). We recognize that different groups may want to add an item or two to the "examples", which is fine as long as the original intent is not distored (i.e. we're hoping that no one will specify that "you must tuck in your shirt or wear a tie" ).

Someone needs to take ownership of it. Then promote it to al listing sites and all local organizations, and see about what other languages it anbe translated too.

Then should it need to be tweaked etc. That trusted person or entity handles the changes.

I don't agree with a centralized distribution person - we each have different contacts and memberships, and speak different languages. It would be burdensome for one person to take on figuring out and contacting all of the possible distribution channels and translators. Much more efficient to depend on the community to distribute what is a community project. With Coyote Red's blessing (the originator of the Code idea), I'm taking ownership of coordinating distribution through this thread.

On the other hand, if people want to volunteer to create resources (e.g. a brochure, PDF file, business card size handout, translation to a different language) and share them with the community, that would be great. Feel free to list those things here and link to the source documents.

It's already clear that we do need an opportunity for continuing input. Let's focus on distribution now (i.e. stay on-topic) and we can open another thread for tweaks in a few months (once people have had some experience with the Code).

Share this post

Link to post

If Tread Lightly didn't exist to promot the tread lightly concept, how many versions of it would be out there?

Do we want or need a version of this code tweaked for every listing site and for every local organizaiton, or tweaked by every land manager to gain permission for placing caches on their lands?

Any time you have a standard, there is a keeper of the standard. Be it a group, organization, or person. If you don't then you don't have a standard. You have an orginal idea and a lot of variations.

I agree with your point, but have to ask: Are you volunteering to be the "keeper of the code"? If not, do you have any other suggestions?

We don't want it associated with a given listing site, so Groundspeak is out, even if they were willing (I hope they'll list it on their site, but not take ownership). Ditto with other geocaching organizations, lest the Code be associated with one group and not others.

We haven't discussed this, but I'm assuming that unless someone else volunteers, Coyote Red will continue to be the "keeper" of the code. If he declines and no one else volunteers, I'll be the keeper of the "official" version, at least for a while (let me know, CR). If someone else (Markwell?) wants to volunteer to host and keep the "official" version of the code on an independent site, that's OK with me (as long as Coyote Red agrees and the keeper shares the original values that went into this).

Again, I agree with your point, but this is a voluntary code created by voluntary contributions, and I don't see how we can make it someone's full time job without investing "ownership" in an existing interest group, which may diminish the appeal to other sites or organizations, or to some cachers who have bad feelings towards those groups!

I'm open to suggestions, but please use PM or email so that we don't drift completely off topic. Thanks!

Share this post

Link to post

I don't know why we need a code, I've already been playing this way for almost 3 years. As far as traveling items go, you should add that the owner of a traveling item should have the goals attached to the traveling item, otherwise risk the traveller moving in an undesired direction. It shouldn't be up to the finder to figure out what the goal is.

Just read the general direction these forums are going in and the increased moderation required to keep it on an even keel. The ethos will soon follow and deginerate into something less than we would hope to strive for. That's typical human nature. We're large enough now we need to have a code of ethics to abide by. Look at any organization or charter and you will see they all have the same in place to keep from disentegrating into a chaotic opinionated mess. Without it, an organization can become so mired in the bickering, they would have no place to turn to for help in getting out of it.

Share this post

Link to post

I'm thinking about putting the tenets on the back of our membership cards, but that seems to me to be implying acceptance as a requirement for membership. What do y'all think?

Personally I think putting it on the back of membership cards is a great idea. To avoid it being seen as a condition of membership, you could title it something like "Voluntary Geocachers' Code", since you wouldn't have room to put the whole introductory paragraph above on a membership card!

Share this post

Link to post

Begging to differ-- the subtitle of this thread is "Final version and distribution discussion". This infers that you can discuss the final version... and my opinion is that this code, while well-meaning, is unnecessary and redundant to guidelines, forums and information already available...

also, I would like to point out that this "code", while containing many behaviors and beliefs that cachers approve of and practice daily, was formulated by a handful of geocachers and has not been approved or endorsed or even commented on or discussed by a large number of cachers who visit this site--who themselves constitute a small subset of the the people who participate in this pastime....

as far as I can tell, the "code" was "Finalized" by a couple of cachers who have taken this project on themselves for the good of everyone and are attempting to force this on other cachers and get it widely distributed. OK, fair enough, but don't talk as if you've got a "mandate" for this thing.

and I'm not even against the stuff that is in the "code"-- I just object to the way it's being done and talked about!

If you want this thread to be just a distribution discussion thread, maybe you'd better change the title, i.e, maybe something like "Code Distribution discussion", to avoid confusion. Happy Hollandaise!

Edited December 25, 2004 by mozartman

Share this post

Link to post

Begging to differ-- the subtitle of this thread is "Final version and distribution discussion". This infers that you can discuss the final version... and my opinion is that this code, while well-meaning, is unnecessary and redundant to guidelines, forums and information already available...

also, I would like to point out that this "code", while containing many behaviors and beliefs that cachers approve of and practice daily, was formulated by a handful of geocachers and has not been approved or endorsed or even commented on or discussed by a large number of cachers who visit this site--who themselves constitute a small subset of the the people who participate in this pastime....

If you want this thread to be just a distribution discussion thread, maybe you'd better change the title, i.e, maybe something like "Code Distribution discussion", to avoid confusion. Happy Hollandaise!

I beleive the subtitle means that this is the "Final version" being posted and "distribution discussion". There's no need to discuss the final version of the 7 basic tenets or the suggestions.

I'd like to point out that the original thread was pinned (by a Groundspeak forums moderator.... I won't go so far as to say it's endorsed by Groundspeak but they certainly have participated in the formulation of this list) for a month and you never took the time to comment about it while it was openly being discussed (at least, on a first quick glance I don't see your username in the thread).

These aren't rules and guidelines. I can't see how anybody can argue with the 7 basic tenets. The examples, while being more specific, are just that... examples. They're not rules.

This thread has 2 purposes - to serve as a temporary host for the Ethic and for people to discuss distribution.

If you'd like to debate whether or not this is needed - another thread would be more appropriate.

Share this post

Link to post

and my opinion is that this code, while well-meaning, is unnecessary and redundant to guidelines, forums and information already available...

I'd agree with to a point. I felt it necessary because the information is all spread out. It's hard to get an overall feeling of our ethos because you have to wade through no telling how many millions of words scattered over hundreds of threads and other locations--some contradictory. We weren't really writing anything new, just distilling everything we already know and agreed on down to something relatively easy to digest.

You don't have to follow The Code, but you'd be going counter to accepted norms already in place and the results would be little different than if The Code didn't exist.

Share this post

Link to post

I agree with the intention to get this kind of information all in one spot for the convenience of new cachers. I would have liked that myself as a newbie. It seems well-thought out. and anyway, I followed "the code" before there was a "code", and continue to do so!

Share this post

Link to post

In view of the recent "What's wrong with this cache" thread, this was a particularly inappropriate time to suggest it to the Texas Geocaching Association. I regret to report that it has met with only scorn and derision. The vocal minority of successionists in their forum have no tolerance for anything that might have originated at a Groundspeak site. Sorry about that.

Share this post

Link to post

In view of the recent "What's wrong with this cache" thread, this was a particularly inappropriate time to suggest it to the Texas Geocaching Association. I regret to report that it has met with only scorn and derision. The vocal minority of successionists in their forum have no tolerance for anything that might have originated at a Groundspeak site. Sorry about that.

Thanks for trying - sorry that you caught the scorn and derision.

Although the Code was born in a gc.com forum (as was the TXGA "succession" movement itself, ironically), an effort was made to keep it from being listing-site specific, i.e. changing words and excluding tenets that were gc.com centric. The gc.com moderators stayed out of the development (except for one or two suggestions that were fair participation like everyone else) and posted the iterations of the code exactly as CoyoteRed wrote them.

As noted above, the code is now listed in the gpsgames.org (a competing site) sponsored Geocahers Wiki and we hope to get it listed on other "competing" sites. GC.com seems fine with wide distribution of the code (i.e. they've made no effort to control the distribution of the Code or limit our use of their forums for this purpose).

I won't take sides in the TXGA succession, but I will say that geocaching.com has taken the high road where the Code is concerned.

Share this post

Link to post

In view of the recent "What's wrong with this cache" thread, this was a particularly inappropriate time to suggest it to the Texas Geocaching Association. I regret to report that it has met with only scorn and derision. The vocal minority of successionists in their forum have no tolerance for anything that might have originated at a Groundspeak site. Sorry about that.

Very interesting assumptions Sputnik. This has nothing to do with any past disagreements as this is user created and independent of Groundspeak as stated in this thread, while most of those who disagree were not involved with past discrepancies. Your description of "scorn and derision" is an unfair as well. I merely echo the concern of necessity and redundancy as pointed out by mozartman. Clearly my views are not alone. If you are wishing to speak more on subject please keep it in its proper discussion posted here:

Share this post

Link to post

...as far as I can tell, the "code" was "Finalized" by a couple of cachers who have taken this project on themselves for the good of everyone and are attempting to force this on other cachers and get it widely distributed. OK, fair enough, but don't talk as if you've got a "mandate" for this thing.

and I'm not even against the stuff that is in the "code"-- I just object to the way it's being done and talked about! ...

Decisions are made by those who show up. You are correct when you say a minority of the people who geocahe participated. But that's the way it is with everything. This is the first time anyone has taken the idea and crossed the end zone with it. There have been other people who threw the idea out there, and others who tried to do something with it but until now there was nothing that could be considered final. If it helps think of it as Final Version 1.0.

The success of the code in being adopted by the larger community is what will give it it's mandate, or not as the case may be.

Your issue with the code is one that at least this time the people who led the effort are willing to undertake. There may be future versions and if there are I have no doubts that even more disccsion on more sites will take place. However it will still take leadership to see it through.

Normally I'm a lot more active in a topic but when this code was made, everything was going the right way. It made it easy to say very little.

Share this post

Link to post

In view of the recent "What's wrong with this cache" thread, this was a particularly inappropriate time to suggest it to the Texas Geocaching Association. I regret to report that it has met with only scorn and derision. The vocal minority of successionists in their forum have no tolerance for anything that might have originated at a Groundspeak site. Sorry about that.

That's funny. I happen to be an charter member of TXGA (if there is such a thing) and I don't have any problem with this, nor do I think a majority there are even concerned.

(I myself don't claim to understand all the hubub in Texas, but then I don't run for my pitchfork and light a torch just because someone else is. Maybe someone could explain to me why I should be mad and then maybe I'll get my pitchfork.)

I could have really torn into a couple people for stuff that was posted on the run-up thread for this project here, but I decided to adopt a wait and see. I'm glad I did, because I can find NOTHING wrong with what they have compiled. The code dosen't insult my intelligence, but most people who've read my posts gather that I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Edited December 27, 2004 by Snoogans

Share this post

Link to post

I will continue to lobby TXGA to post or link to the code. I was surprised by what I perceived as a very hostile initial reaction, and I responded poorly. Since then, the discussion has become more balanced. I have posted a poll regarding whether the code should be posted, and have offered the following reasons in favor of my position (sorry for the length of this post). If anyone has additional thoughts, I would be happy to pass them along.

The "Geocachers' Code" was created through a month-long, open forum discussion among 35 active geocachers. It was viewed over 3600 times during development. This is a voluntary code--it describes how geocachers in general act. It is not a new set of rules. The code was specifically designed not to be specific to any one site or state, or any one form of the game. It is not offered as a "Texas" code, or a Geocaching.com code, but as a code for all who participate in the activity. Posting it here does not limit its application to Texans. It is simply a method to help disseminate the code to geocachers everywhere. It has been posted on the GPS Games web site, and by local organizations in Maryland and New York. It will be published in the January edition of Today's Cacher online magazine.

Why have a Code of Ethics? Codes of ethics are intended to define accepted (and unacceptable) behaviors; to promote high standards of practice; to provide a benchmark for members to use for self-evaluation; to establish a framework for appropriate behavior and responsibilities; as a vehicle to identify or provide a badge of distinction for the activity; and as a mark of maturity for the activity.

Of course, promoting high standards does not mean that everyone will follow them, but when others failure to follow the code, it serves as a baseline against which their behavior can be measured with some objectivity. You can use the code to help you determine whether actions you plan to take are consistent with the spirit of the game. The code doesn't prohibit you from placing a knife in a cache, but suggests that in most cases, it isn't a good idea, and offers a reason for not doing so. Outsiders will come to know geocachers by their conduct, and a few "bad apples" can spoil things for the rest of us, but at least those of us that behave appropriately can point to the code and say, "This is the way geocachers are expected to behave. The rogue cacher that gave you a bad impression was not representative of the rest of us, who subscribe to this standard of behavior."

The need for special ethical principles in an organized activity is the same as the need for ethical principles in society as a whole. They are mutually beneficial. They help make our relationships mutually pleasant and productive. Geocaching is a voluntary, cooperative enterprise. Those who are asked to follow a code of ethics are also those who benefit from the conformity of others. Each has a stake in maintaining general compliance.

A code of ethics must be compatible with our common morality, but it goes beyond our common morality. You could say that the code interprets our common morality for the specific details of the recreational activity/sport/hobby of geocaching. The very exercise of developing a code is in itself worthwhile; it forces people to think through in a fresh way their the important (self-imposed) obligations that they as a group and as individuals have with respect to geocaching as a whole.

I mentioned the scouts in an earlier post and sarcastically chided them for "setting rules" I might not want to follow. My sarcasm was missed, and my comments were taken as inappropriate. I apologize. My point was that I shouldn't object to the Geocachers' Code any more than scouts might object to their code of conduct. The Scouts have their own Outdoor Code:

"As an American, I will do my best to -

Be clean in my outdoor manners

Be careful with fire

Be considerate in the outdoors, and

Be conservation minded. "

This isn't the essence of scouting. It says nothing about having fun, building friendships or learning valuable life lessons. It simply serves as a reminder of common morality, applied to a specific activity. In the same way, the Geocachers' Code doesn't speak about having fun, making new friends, getting exercise and experiencing the great outdoors. That is not its purpose. Instead, it seeks to apply common morality to a specific activity.

You may argue that common morality is enough, and that there is no need for a code of ethics that seeks to interpret that morality for geocaching. For you, that may well be true. But others may benefit by reading the code and applying it to their actions. The importance and benefits of codes of ethics can be seen by their popularity. Countless other activities have developed codes of ethics to apply common morality to their sport or hobby. These include dog breading, hiking, maintaining a museum, driving off-road vehicles, snowmobiling, and running a library, to name a few. Members of all of these organizations might have said that common morality is enough, yet each group saw a benefit of applying general ethical rules to their own activities.

There may well be a downside to adopting the code of ethics, or posting it on the web site. Some may argue that it is pointless, because it isn't binding, so people won't conform. Others may argue that it is inappropriate, because it may be seen as binding by others, and it thereby restricts individual freedom. Of course, there is no "Code Police" to enforce it upon others, other than the influence that may be brought to bear by other geocachers. That "peer pressure" is there now, but without an objective model to which one may point to question another's behavior. The code provides a backstop for geocachers to use when trying to influence others to act in a way that benefits the geocaching community.

Perhaps the objection is not to a code of ethics itself, but to this particular code. Renegade Knight has referred to this version of the code as "Final Version 1.0". It may well evolve, and your input in how to make it better is welcome. Until something better comes along, however, I feel that posting the code here will improve geocaching by helping to define accepted (and unacceptable) behaviors, promoting high standards of practice, providing a benchmark for members to use for self-evaluation, and establishing a framework against which to measure appropriate behavior and responsibilities.

Share this post

Link to post

In the "Not endanger myself or others" part, Not carrying a firearm would ne a nice addition I think.

What? Never! Now it's nearing infringment of personal rights....

All in all it's okay. Sounds like an oath from a Boy Scout book. Raise your right hand please and repeat after me...

I had hoped to hold off for a while before reopening discussion of the content of the code's examples and explanations, but there's obviously continued interest in that. Please limit comments on this thread to the distribution of the code. If you'd like to discuss the contents of the code, please post your comments here. Thanks!

pnew - Thanks for checking out this thread and for linking the TXGA thread - it's interesting reading, and sounds like the discussion is ongoing, as Sputnik 57 said in his most recent post. In any event, it precipitated a good discussion on distributing the Code here.

Edit: Sputnik - I think you've made the key points, and done it well. I can't think of anything to add.

Share this post

Link to post

As my first post in this group, I'd like to say this posting of the Code has been more than welcome to me. I'm hardly new to exploring, especially here in Nevada's deserts and mountains, and GC gives me new excuses...ah...REASONS to do that. I'm afraid my GPS is very outdated, but a new one will have to wait until I see how close it gets me to the caches.

I'm not new to CITO concept either, being a long-time member of Earthguardians and a practioneer of Leave No Trace since before the concept was popular. However, it was a relief to read this Code and KNOW exactly what was expected of me as a new member.

I was stunned when I first googled local GC groups and saw how many there were! And was pleased to see the organization and thought behind the GC concept. However, as a newbie to the [game/sport/??] the amount of information confronting me was mind-numbing, and, again, it was with relief I found the Code post. At least that part is now clear. [Now if only I could figure out how to use Waypoints...hmmm]

Thanks again for posting the Code and for all the happy times I anticipate ahead!

Share this post

Link to post

Although the Code was born in a gc.com forum (as was the TXGA "succession" movement itself, ironically),

Thats incorrect, we have are own site fourm for that. We merely used these fourms to express are concerns per Groundspeak. Our "succession" was actually organized within the TXGA fourm boards.

I meant that the concerns that precipitated the "succession" movement (the straw that broke the camel's back) were first expressed in the gc.com forums, not that the movement was organized here (that would have been kind of silly). If the succession movement preceded the "What's wrong with this cache" thread, I apologize for misspeaking.

Share this post

Link to post

As my first post in this group, I'd like to say this posting of the Code has been more than welcome to me...

I was stunned when I first googled local GC groups and saw how many there were! And was pleased to see the organization and thought behind the GC concept. However, as a newbie to the [game/sport/??] the amount of information confronting me was mind-numbing, and, again, it was with relief I found the Code post. At least that part is now clear. [Now if only I could figure out how to use Waypoints...hmmm]

Thanks again for posting the Code and for all the happy times I anticipate ahead!

Thanks for your comments - they let us know that we've accomplished one of our main goals - to make it easier for newcomers to the game/sport/obession!

Share this post

Link to post

Although the Code was born in a gc.com forum (as was the TXGA "succession" movement itself, ironically),

Our "succession"

Please don't speak for me.

The so called "succession" is just a few members who are entitled to their opinion. Many are my personal friends and no one is trying to win hearts and minds away from ANY other site that I can see. Of course, they could have an ultra secret conspiracy forum, but I'm pretty sure I'd know if they did.

I'll continue happily with my Dual Citizenship as will most of the TxGA, I suspect.

See my sig line?

Edited December 30, 2004 by Snoogans

Share this post

Link to post

I dont wanna support this code as it could pose bad PR fof the game from the bad apples and the stereotyping of the non-geocachers should this code be broken if this is suppose to be a guidline of the way geocachers are suppose to act.

According to other geocachers on here they feel they dont need a code and should be able to do what they want. As stated in teh dangerous caches thread thier is no guideline to what should be conisdered dangerous and what is and they feel it should be there choice. If this is the way they feel then that would be against this code and the way of thinking this code is suppose to establish, thus creating a bad image on geocaching.

I would support this code if you could lobby the safety of placing caches and guidelines should be set to what is safe and what isnt. Without that thier is no point of having this code as no one will follow it and it will landslide out of control and be a thing of the past.